Evolution vs God


#21

The issue is the belief that life originated from non life and then improved error by error until there were brilliant humans. If they can find life anywhere beyond earth, that would prove (in their minds) their fervent beliefs.

And if we found intelligent life that communicated with us and confirmed their beliefs, they would be in heaven, so to speak.

I think the problem is the quantum foam. We can observe that there are subatomic particles, like an electron and anti-electron, constantly popping into existence and annihilating each other. This happens even in an absolute vacuum. The cacophony it causes is called “quantum foam”.

It’s a stretch, but since we observe little particles popping into existence without cause, what prevents a whole universe from popping into existence?

Of course this ignores the “finely tuned universe” argument. There are now hundreds of parameters that have been identified that are finely tuned such that we can exist. If gravity were just a tiny bit stronger, life would be impossible for one reason, but if it were a tiny bit weaker, life would be impossible for another reason. The same is true for lots of other parameters.

So how do they avoid recognizing that the universe and our bodies were designed? Great faith.


#22

The issue I’m on is that common descent exists. It’s established, even your sources don’t deny it.

It does not disprove God; it merely acknowledges that the same forces that built the universe, also built us.

And If God built those forces, it’s the same as him making us and everything else.

You’re talking about the Earth itself, not the universe. Making claims about the Earth in this way just leads back to the sentient puddle analogy.

Contradiction; if the Universe was designed, you don’t need design of our bodies. The designed laws of the universe will do it automatically, just like they built everything else. Nuclear reactions, the Grand Canyon, the cosmic web.


#23

What good does it do to “establish common descent” if the underlying mechanism of evolution is proven to be bankrupt?


#24

No, I’m talking about G in the Newton’s equation, not g of the earth.

I don’t have the source at hand but if you google something like “fine tuning of the universe” you’ll surely find it. When I first heard of it, there were something like 30 parameters, then there were over 60. Last I heard, someone had identified over 200. The ratio between the strengths of the strong and weak nuclear forces is one, but I can’t remember why.

Someone could conceivably believe that the universe was designed but that life evolved. But life didn’t evolve. The human body was designed. So it’s not a contradiction. I stated both.


#25

Because it means it can’t be denied. Animals become other animals.

You can say Darwinism doesn’t explain everything to it, but that doesn’t deny that common descent happens.

Just like how we can’t explain Quantum mechanics with our current theory, but we know it goes on.

Observation precedes understanding.

I don’t need to know how a fire started, or even how a chemical reaction works, to know something is burning.


#26

Empirical evidence always trumps theory.


#27

Indeed, I have no issue with challenging theory.

Theories are used to explain observations; it’s fair game to question whether they adequately explain those observations.

It’s when you insist the observations themselves aren’t real, and that everyone in the game who makes them is lying, that you’ve gone too far.


#28

Nonsense. There is NO evidence of a mosquito becoming an elephant…or anything in between.


#29

The Genome is the evidence, and you admit we know how to read it.

23and Me can break down your genetics showing you how much of your DNA comes from neanderthals, or homo floresiensis, We can make traces between species based on what they have in common.

And more important than the traits themselves, is the errors. The dead genes and mutations.
If you have the same pattern of errors, in the same areas of your genome; you’re related.

The only question is how far back.

Whether we’re looking inter species, or just finding where geographically you “come from”, it’s the same science, and many times the same people doing that science.

They’re doing the same thing. Analyzing mtDNA


#30

The nature of proteins alone knocks evolution out of the ring. But wait, it’s worse. Many proteins don’t do anything by themselves, they must be precisely arranged together to make a molecular machine work. And that hierarchy continues, as many molecular machines are worthless without the higher order arrangement of molecular machines. And the cooperation of other systems, especially the nervous system.

Having revealed that evolution can’t explain life’s designs, you have to start looking for other answers to what appears to be common descent.

Those who have faith in evolution always fail to even consider that the designer may well have used the very same components (same proteins) in multiple designs.

Are you reporting a quantum effect in evolution?


#31

I suspect that it’s really “without observed cause.”


#32

You’re invoking Behe here, and this was something he actually fouled up on:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/evo.13710

As they say there, proteins are not in fact machines. Claims made about them should fit the data, not what makes the best story.

While it can’t explain everything, it does describe some things.

This we know, because people have used Evolution to make predictions of what fossils we would find and where. Predictions that proved true.

The only way that can happen, is if Evolution is getting something right.

Okay, let’s test that. Here’s what common descent is inside the genome.

Mutations, by the dozens if not hundreds, showing up as patterns. Patterns we see dispersed among the genomes, inter-species.

There’s no reason for these shared patterns, mutations are random afterall.

We know what a mutation looks like because they still happen, and what we see in the genome are mutations that happened a long time ago. Mutations that were passed on for generations.

These patterns act as fingerprints we trace through time. This is precisely how we track human ancestry, so we know what we’re doing works.

Saying we can do this for tracing your early ancestors to somewhere in Europe, but we can’t do that for a creature, say, the Tasmanian Tiger, to establish it’s ancestors were possums, just looks like a double standard.

It’s the same science, the same analysis of error patterns. The same mtDNA. Yet you only accept one, and not the other.


#33

If humans “descended” from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?


#34

No. I’m invoking my own knowledge of proteins. Though Dr. Stephen Meyer makes essentially the same argument I do.

I’m sure you can find cases of promiscuous proteins finding new roles. But who wrote the DNA code for our 20,000+ proteins to begin with? You see, changing roles isn’t the problem, it’s the origin of the proteins to begin with that’s the problem. You keep trying to skip the impossible problems and only deal with the easy ones.

True. ATP5F1A, a 553-amino acid protein in the alpha subunit of the F1 subunit of ATP synthase, isn’t a molecular machine by itself. It’s a COMPONENT of the ATP synthase molecular machine. It’s got a proton pump, for crying out loud. Not a machine?

Which came first? The DNA that codes the proteins that synthesize proteins? Or the proteins themselves?

This is a chicken-or-egg problem, but by no means a trivial one. It doesn’t matter if you can explain how to get over molehills, there’s just no way evolution can get over the Himalayas. But the Himalayas are way too small to be an accurate metaphor. Mountains the size of the sun would be too small.

Well, it’s a good thing that Dr. Behe clarified the edge of evolution. He says new species do arise by evolution as you know it, by accumulating harmful mutations that are at times beneficial. But no new families, orders or classes.


#35

Because you’re embroiled in critcism of theory, while I’m talking about an observation you admit works.

it’s just, you have a double standard about it. I’m still waiting for an explanation.

The gene patterns are there, you can’t deny that. And there’s only one reason they’d be there.
A reason Behe admits outright.

How is that an issue? Not all cells use ATP synthase. Older mechanisms, like glycolysis, exist for cells to produce energy.

And indeed, ATP synthase is itself built out of the waste products of glycolysis. Implying a step-wise development.

He says all life is related, and that God simply guided the higher order development.

He says all life is related, because that’s what the genome shows. The same ancient mutation patterns passed along multiple taxonomic hierarchies.

Behe, btw, also says humans descended from (extinct) apes. He admitted this because we found out which of our Chromosomes were merged; another prediction Evolutionary theory made, and was proven correct.

Yes, we found this Ken.


#36

You have an observation that you say can only be explained by evolution. But I’ve agreed that your evolution might explain species and possibly some genera, but it’s perfectly impossible to go beyond.

If there’s an observation that then remains unexplained, it won’t be lonely. There are MANY observations in science that can’t be explained. That doesn’t change the FACT that it’s impossible for microbes to have evolved to man.

See? You’re still in denial.

ATP synthase doesn’t work at all unless all the proteins are designed, the instructions are in place to assemble them (not well understood yet), and the machine is properly positioned in the appropriate membrane.

But consider just ATP5F1A. It requires all of its 553 amino acids to be correct and in the correct order. That’s an insurmountable problem. There are 10^719 permutations of amino acids that long. Essentially infinite.

You still think that random mutations and tweaks here and there can explain the origin of ATP5F1A. It can’t. The origin of ATP5F1A by evolution isn’t remotely possible.


#37

I don’t see you offering an alternative.

You admit that gene tracing does indicate lineage; you’d have to claim 23andme and AncestryDNA were committing hocus pocus if you didn’t.

And since you admit that works, I don’t see how you can say comparing lineage of creatures is then out of bounds.

It’s the same science, the same process, and often the same people doing the work. We do find these patterns, they are there, so those patterns say something.

You’re trying to put a double standard in place, and I don’t see how you’re going to justify it.
Again, Behe already admits he can’t.

It’s not though.

You’re criticizing Darwinism, not Evolution, and certainly not Common Descent.

You’ve confused them as being the same, when even Behe admits a difference.

I’m going to re-explain this.

You claimed this was chicken & egg. Fact is, ATP Synthase is not even the egg.

It’s not the first version of cell energy generation. Cells had previous methods of generating energy; we know this because they still exist.

There are alternate forms of ATP Synthase, there are simpler forms of it.

And what’s more, there are bacteria that had more than one way of generating ATP.

Your frame of ATP Snythase needing to be generated first, is something you believe without having first looked at nature, asking if different means for metabolizing energy existed.

It’s like the walking fish, you didn’t realize that existed either.